Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-12-16 PC Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 12, 2016 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson V. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Chris Barry, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, and Janet White. Absent: None. Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke 2. Introduction of Commission Members V. Reid acknowledged and welcomed the two new members of the Commission. Barry introduced himself and provided some background information on his experience. R. Reid introduced herself noting that she has previously served on the Planning and Park Commissions. 3. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda There were none. 4. Update from City Council Proceedings Anderson provided an update on the recent activity of the City Council noting that the Council agreed with the recommendations of the Planning Commission on the Bradford Creek Addition, the PUD amendment for Kal Point, the rezoning of the Just for Kix parcel, and denial of the sign setback variance request from Woodland Hill Preserve. 5. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. White referenced the Vickerman right-of-way request and asked for additional information. Finke provided a brief summary of the request and noted that if you did not know better, you would already think the right-of-way was part of their property. 6. Approval of Meeting Minutes. December 8, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Motion by White, seconded by Foote, to approve the December 8, 2015, Planning Commission minutes with noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. 2 December 15, 2015 Concurrent City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Motion by Albers, seconded by White, to approve the December 15, 2015, concurrent City Council and Planning Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. 7. Hamel Brewery – 22 Hamel Road – Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Dining and Drinking Area – Public Hearing Finke presented a request from Hamel Brewing, 22 Hamel Road, for two land use requests which would allow for the development of the property as proposed; a Site Plan review to allow the building to be constructed as proposed and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the outdoor seating area. He stated that the site is currently vacant with trees around the perimeter of the site. He noted that the Commission previously reviewed an application for an eight-unit apartment building on the site, but advised that the one year time period has lapsed and that particular application is no longer valid. He displayed the proposed Site Plan, noting that the deck would be set back five feet from the property line as required. He stated that the building is proposed to be 5,300 square feet and the main level would contain the bar and food service area, while the basement would contain the brewery operation and storage and the mezzanine level would have additional seating for the bar operations. He stated that there are 24 parking spaces proposed to the north and reviewed the setback requirements in the Uptown Hamel zoning district noting that the dimensional standards of the district are met by the request. He reviewed the proposed building materials, noting that the hardy board siding proposed is not currently included in the list of allowable materials. He stated that the material was added as an allowed material in another similar zoning area and stated that staff is not opposed to adding hardy board siding as an allowed material in the Uptown Hamel zoning district, as the material would complement nearby residential development. He continued to review the required and proposed design elements. He reviewed the parking requirements, noting a total requirement of 50 spaces, with perhaps a few additional spaces for food pickup. He stated that flexibility is provided in the Uptown Hamel zoning district, noting that available on-street parking can be considered, and advised that there are 25 on- street parking stalls available. He referenced the City owned parking lot which is approximately 1,000 feet from this site. He stated that perhaps there would be another adjacent use with an off-peak use that could provide shared parking, such as an office or the chiropractor clinic. He noted that the outdoor seating area would only be available during the warmer weather months of the year, therefore during the colder months only 34 stalls would be needed as the outdoor seats could be removed from the calculation. He reviewed the proposed tree removal and tree replacement that would be required; noting that the applicant is requesting a waiver from the ordinance. He stated that the outdoor seating area requires a CUP, which allows the City to place conditions on that approval. He stated that the privacy fence would help to minimize the impact of the outdoor seating on the adjacent properties. Murrin referenced the aerial view of the property and pointed out an area north of Hamel Road, asking if there is an easement that would allow for an extension of Brockton Lane, noting that could realign the driveway and possibly provide an area for additional parking. Finke stated that the property is owned by the adjacent property owner to the east, noting that there is not right-of-way in that location for extension of public services. He stated that it could be possible for the parcel of property to be purchased, but noted that is not what is proposed in this application. Albers referenced the deck and confirmed the distance between the deck and neighboring commercial property which is currently listed for sale. 3 Foote referenced the City owned parking lot, which was mentioned and confirmed that is a parking lot for the park. Barry asked if the privacy wall was taken into account for the window calculations. Finke stated that just the building itself is taken into account for those calculations. V. Reid asked if suggestions were made to the applicant regarding shared parking arrangements. Finke stated that staff recommended that the applicant look into that and noted that the applicant will follow up to determine options. V. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Jordan Lockner, ATSR Architects, stated that there were some comments in the report regarding granting of the right-of-way easement and noted that they may want to have a title search done before granting that. He referenced the storm sewer line and the easement requested for that, stating that they would be open to that. He also noted that an accommodation to the owner of the property may be needed if the City desired to expand the line in the future, as that could impact the building/site. Foote asked if the applicant has any similar businesses to this in the metro area, noting that perhaps an accurate parking estimate could be made using the other business as a model. Todd Murley stated that they do not have other businesses like this. He noted that most of the tap rooms that he has visited in the metro are in urban areas and therefore on-street parking is used. He did not think it would be too far to walk from the City lot. V. Reid stated that she was concerned with the overhang and porch requirement, noting that the City has worked hard to establish a friendly look in the Uptown Hamel area. She stated that while she likes the barn type look of the building she would like to see a more friendly view and expanded porch for the front side of the building. Joe Anton, ATSR Architects, stated that a number of versions were reviewed for the front façade of the building, specifically the porch and overhang. He stated that a much larger porch and overhang had been proposed, but because of the service of alcohol the owner of the business does not want to encourage patrons to hang out on the front porch area. He stated that they are attempting to create a point of intrigue on the front façade with the glazing. V. Reid referenced the fence for the patio, noting that staff recommends a more transparent fence, and asked if the applicant would be open to replacing the solid fence with a more transparent fence. Anton stated that he would be open to that, but would have to speak with the business owner. Lockner stated that the applicant’s view is to keep the activity within the site and screen unwanted activity from the adjacent users. He noted that the benefit was not to the outdoor seating area, but the adjacent uses and therefore they would be open to a more transparent fence. Barry asked why there are two garage doors proposed for the loading dock area. 4 Lockner stated that the door to east would allow equipment and forklifts to come in at grade and enter the basement level, while there is a three-foot difference in the loading dock. V. Reid referenced the issue of the front porch and asked if drinking would be a concern for staff. Finke stated that he did not believe it would naturally draw people to hang out in that area and noted that it would require policing by the applicant. V. Reid noted that the intent for Uptown Hamel is to make it feel older like a welcoming neighborhood and that is why she would like to see the porch. Lockner stated that they designed the site to keep people off the street, but noted that it sounds like the City would actually desire the opposite. He stated that they did have a design that had a larger porch and is more what V. Reid is speaking of, but they had thought that the City would probably want to keep the patrons on the site more and that is why they made the design choices they did. Albers asked if the awning should be made larger while the steps remain the same with the larger deck on the other side. Finke stated that the theory would be that you would be walking on the sidewalk and walk underneath the awnings but noted that the grade for this property provides separation that would not make that possible in this location. White asked how far along the landscaping plan is and whether it is known as to if there is room for additional tree replacement on site. Lockner stated that the site is pretty tight and they tucked in as many trees as they could, therefore there is not much additional space to plant more trees without impacting the site and plowing capability. He stated that native plant material and grasses would be used on the site in order to blend in with the trees on neighboring sites. He stated that the site will have a natural feel because of the heavy trees that exist on neighboring sites. V. Reid asked for clarification on the parking issue. Murley stated that in regard to parking they attempted to fit as many spaces on the site as they could and are hoping to work with the City in order to make this work. He confirmed that they have not approached other businesses, such as the VFW. He stated that they are in the process of possibly obtaining additional land as well that could assist with parking, but noted that would not be complete by the time the application moves forward. He stated that for the majority of the time he did not think the business would need the amount of parking required by the City. He stated that hopefully they will be able to work with the VFW to obtain shared parking, but did not want that to be a sticking point for the approval of the application. Finke stated that this would be similar to the Kal Point application the Commission recently reviewed in regard to parking and shared parking. He noted that the layout of the site, placing the building towards the front to fit into the Uptown Hamel model, forgoes additional parking that could be gained by placing the building to the rear of the site. White asked the anticipated hours of the business. 5 Murley replied with the anticipated hours of the tap room, noting that the business would be closed on Mondays and Tuesdays. He stated that the brew room would be open on Monday and Tuesday with a minimum number of employees working, maybe two or three. Murrin asked and received the response that there would be four business partners investing in the business. She asked if the business partners would be doing the brewing themselves. Murley stated that he will start out brewing with one assistant. Murrin asked if the partners would be running the restaurant themselves or whether they would lease out the space to someone to run the restaurant. Dave Unitan stated that they are still working on the details. Murley stated that they would be in charge of the tap room and the kitchen would be its own entity that would supply the food. He stated that their desire would be to have a general manager that would manage the restaurant and tap room. Murrin asked if any of the partners have experience in restaurants or tap rooms or whether this is a new venture. Murley stated that he grew up working in the food service industry, but does not have experience running a restaurant. He stated that he does have experience in home brewing, but would also be bringing in another person with experience. Jim Tiller, Treasurer of Arnt Hamel property, stated that his primary interest is drainage. He stated that in the material he has seen it appears there is a stormwater improvement or pipe to the east and north. He stated that the site slopes to the north and asked where the storm pipes exit. Finke stated that the stormwater system is part of the Uptown Hamel system and provided additional details. He stated that the parking lot would be guttered and would enter the system to flow into Rainwater Park. Tiller stated that there is a lot of water that flows downhill currently across the tracks and onto the Arnt property. He noted that his concern is that additional water would flow down onto the property. Finke stated that in most instances this will be an improvement in that area, but noted in heavy rain events water could still flow down the hill. Tiller asked where snow storage would occur, noting that if placed on the railroad property that melting snow would melt downhill onto the Arnt property. Lockner stated that they would obviously push it where they can, but noted that if it becomes a problem they could stockpile it in the back parking stalls or haul it off site. He stated that it could be put on the greenspace between the deck and south parking stalls. Dave Truax stated that he is interested in beer and has been listening to the discussion. He stated that he lives near the site and walks by quite often. He used the example of Loretto that has businesses right on the road that do not have a lot of parking and seem to work well. 6 R. Reid noted similar types of businesses in neighboring cities that have limited parking and use on street parking. She stated that they do want that type of activity in Uptown Hamel. Murrin stated that the applicant should talk to the VFW as that is the easiest location to share parking and that is most likely where patrons would park if needed. V. Reid closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. V. Reid reviewed the issues that the Commission should discuss and come to consensus on. She asked the applicant how important the hardy board siding would be for use. Anton stated that the hardy board siding is less susceptible to rot and therefore was attractive. He stated that if it was necessary to go without that material, the applicant would be able to pick a different product. V. Reid stated that the Commission has recently allowed the material for use in another zoning district. Murrin asked if there was a reason the Commission wants to approve the material for the district as a whole or just for the one application. V. Reid stated that she would just prefer to allow the material within the Uptown Hamel district. She confirmed the consensus of the Commission. Finke stated that the Commission would need to hold a public hearing for that action at a future meeting. Murrin asked if the material could be approved for this application to allow the applicant to continue to move forward. Finke explained that the approval could be conditioned on either an approval of the amended ordinance or amending the exterior materials to those allowed in the district. Murrin stated that she would like a more transparent design for the fence that allows people to see into the patio seating area. She referenced the stairs on the front and was unsure the purpose. Anton provided additional details on the purpose for the stairs, noting that will assist in mitigating the grade of the site. V. Reid stated that there should be large railings for safety. Murrin referenced the layout of the stairs and asked if they be laid out in another direction. Anton explained that there would not be sufficient space for that layout. He provided additional information on the loading dock area and its impact on the height of the building. He provided additional information on the design of the loading dock. V. Reid stated that there are comments regarding the building mass in the front, but no solutions have been presented from the Commission. She agreed that it would help to reduce the mass by making the side fence more transparent. She asked how the railing would look. 7 Lockner replied that the railing would be on both sides of the steps and would follow the steps. Murrin asked if the building could be set back further on the site to put the steps in the front rather than on the side. Anton replied that there are setbacks for the back and additional parking stalls would be lost as well. He noted that the intent of Uptown Hamel is to have buildings in the front of the site. White stated that one of the conditions could state that the patio on the west has railings similar to the patio as shown on the south elevation. V. Reid asked if it would be possible to have more of an overhang on the front. Barry replied that the windows would need to be smaller. Murrin stated that she likes the bigger windows. She stated that perhaps the porch could be made to look like a walkout but not really a walkout, noting that there is another one of that example in Uptown Hamel, similar to a balcony that is just for show. Anton replied that would be more costly. He stated that he could mention that to the office to determine if a reasonable compromise could be found, such as extending the overhang over the stairway to soften that aspect. V. Reid stated that the extended overhang would meet the requirements of the district. She also confirmed that the applicant would be comfortable with the more transparent fence. R. Reid referenced the wall in front of the stairs and asked what kind of material that would be, specifically whether it would be natural stone or manufactured stone. Lockner stated that the material would be stone. He stated that the architect would like to use a material similar to the stone band around the base of the building. He stated that most likely the stone would go around the base of the stoop similar to the base of the building. R. Reid stated that she does not like manufactured stone and simply wanted to ensure that the material would not look manufactured or like a retaining wall. Anton replied that natural stone would most likely be used as well. Finke provided additional details on the tree preservation ordinance and waiver requirements. White stated that her first thought is that a number of properties have requested the waiver and the Commission has not granted the waiver request and instead required offsite planting; therefore, she would not support the waiver. Finke stated that waivers have been issued in the past, using the Fields of Medina development as an example. He noted that is a different type of development and does not set precedent. Murrin asked if the applicant is requesting a waiver in order to not pay the offsite planting fees. Finke stated that is not technically a waiver, as that could be done without a waiver. 8 Murrin agreed that there would not be an area to plant the trees on this site. V. Reid stated that this is the type of business the City wants and asked if the Commission wanted to grant a partial waiver. Foote stated that he would support a partial waiver, as the applicant will be preserving the Black Walnut Trees on the site. R. Reid stated that perhaps Uptown Hamel should be looked at differently, as the City does want higher density and trees will need to be removed that cannot be replanted on the site. She stated that residential development is different because of the available space for trees. Murrin stated that it would still be good to collect the funds and plant trees elsewhere in the City to keep the City green. She stated that she would support a 50 percent waiver and still collect funds to plant additional trees. R. Reid stated that her only concern with parking would be the proximity to Inn Kahoots, which may also use some of the on street parking. V. Reid stated that she is not a fan of more parking than needed as she does not like to see empty parking lots. She stated that they may be able to ease into the parking now, but as the business becomes more popular more parking may be needed. She stated that a shared parking arrangement for an additional ten spaces would be preferred. She stated that in the summer people can walk and utilize the City lots. Foote stated that directional signage could be posted directing patrons to the appropriate spots, such as the City owned lots. Murrin stated that she would support a shared parking arrangement as well and would also support the agreement only covering the ten additional spots. V. Reid asked how busy Inn Kahoots is on the weekends. Marilyn Larson, Inn Kahoots, stated that her business is busy and the lot is full on the weekends and for events. She stated that some people will always prefer to park on the street. She stated that if people want to go the business they will find somewhere to park. She stated that she is not worried about patrons taking parking spaces that might otherwise be used by her patrons. Finke stated that staff did review the other similar businesses in neighboring cities, with businesses close to the street and little parking. He stated that ultimately staff discussed this issue and came down to the bigger concern of the negative impacts to other business owners. Murrin stated that perhaps more than ten stalls should be included in the shared parking agreement because of the possibility that snow storage may occur on the back stalls. White stated that she disagrees that a larger number of stalls would be required. She stated that if people are going to go to the business they will find a spot to park. She believed that the Commission should follow a similar path as the Kal Point application, noting that if parking in neighboring lots becomes a problem the applicant shall install signage directing patrons to available parking stalls. She stated parking spaces cannot be created where they do not exist. 9 R. Reid stated that people will walk, and noted that she and her husband often walk when visiting businesses in this type of development and have no issue with it. She stated that the area needs this type of development and she would not require a parking agreement. Finke stated that perhaps additional signage could be posted alerting of the City owned lots as well as increasing the visibility of those lots. V. Reid agreed that this is a good business which she wants to encourage, but wanted to ensure that this would not set the business up for parking issues in the future. She stated that she is encouraged by the fact that Inn Kahoots does not have issues with parking. Murrin referenced the hardy board siding and wanted to ensure that the siding is installed per manufacturer’s specifications. V. Reid stated that would be discussed further at the public hearing for that item. Murrin asked if staff believed additional windows should be installed. Finke stated that the applicant has done what they can from the point of staff and it would be hard to add more windows without redesigning the building or putting windows into the loading dock area. Motion by Murrin, seconded by R. Reid, to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Dining and Drinking Area for Hamel Brewery at 22 Hamel Road, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, modified as follows: 1. Change the condition related to exterior building materials so that approval is contingent either on an amendment to the Code or to plans being updated with materials that meet the Code; 2. Add a condition that plans be updated to extend the overhang on the front of the building further to the west; 3. Add a condition that plans be updated so that the fence on the south of the outdoor seating area is more transparent; 4. Add a condition stating that approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining an agreement with another property owner to use a minimum of ten parking stalls; 5. Add a condition requiring 50 percent of the replacement trees to be provided on-site, or through a contribution to the environmental fund. Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Foote, to amend the motion to delete the condition related to shared parking. Motion approved 6-1 (Murrin opposed). Motion by Foote, seconded by White, to amend the motion to delete the condition related to tree replacement, in order to grant the tree replacement waiver requested by the applicant. Motion approved 6-1 (Murrin opposed). The amended motion carries unanimously. V. Reid briefly recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. V. Reid reconvened the meeting at 9:03 p.m. 10 8. Election of 2016 Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair Finke opened nominations for the position of Chair for 2016. R. Reid nominated V. Reid as Chair for 2016. There were no other nominations. V. Reid was elected as Chair upon unanimous consent. Finke opened the nominations for Vice Chair for 2016. V. Reid nominated White as Vice Chair. There were no other nominations. White was elected as Vice Chair upon unanimous consent. 9. Update on Comprehensive Plan Update Process Finke stated that information was provided in the packet from the last meeting of the Steering Committee and advised that the Commission can discuss the vision and the goals that were mentioned in order to provide feedback. Murrin referenced the list of household forecasts and asked why Stonegate is not included. Finke stated that development is not finalized yet and will also be rural, which is not included in the forecast, as it is not in the sewer area of the City. Finke left the meeting. V. Reid stated that there have been several meetings of the Steering Committee. She stated that Commissioners can sign up to receive updates through the City website. Barry noted that he did study up on the Comprehensive Plan in order to be more informed before joining the Commission. V. Reid stated that a vision statement and community goals have bene developed in draft format and strategies would be developed next. White stated that there were not really any substantial changes to the vision statement. V. Reid noted that there were other changes suggested that were not added. White referenced the wording of the statement. She stated that Cousineau also had some good suggestions and wordsmithing that was not included. She noted that rural character could be interpreted differently by other people and stated that perhaps that should be more defined. Foote stated that vision statement seems like it is good and it is time to move on to additional work on the Plan. White stated that she was surprised that the comments made were not included. Albers stated that the comments made at the group meeting in December were not reflected by the vision statement. He explained that the vision statement can be amended throughout the process as the goals and strategies are more developed. R. Reid stated that she does not like the first sentence and believed that there could be a better way to say that. 11 V. Reid noted that R. Reid could put a proposal on ‘my sidewalk.’ Murrin stated that the first sentence is overly simplified. R. Reid believed that there would be a better way to say that. Murrin stated that the first sentence could say that Medina is one city that is working together to be integrated or working together to meet city-wide goals. She stated that the last sentence is one very long run-on sentence. V. Reid confirmed the consensus of the Commission that the vision statement needs wordsmithing. She referenced the goals, which she believed are much improved. White agreed that the goals are improved. Murrin suggested using an alternate word for investments in the education goal. Albers stated that he would skip over the schools goal, as the City does not have control over the School District. V. Reid stated that the City does though, because they make the decision on where development occurs. Murrin stated that utilities should also be considered in planning and should be mentioned in the goals. She referenced the goal regarding events serving the entire community and noted that it would be difficult to find an event appropriate for the entire community. R. Reid stated that the intent would be that the events are open to the entire community and acknowledged that the entire community would most likely not choose to attend. V. Reid stated that there is a north south divide and the attempt would be to connect the two. Murrin provided some wordsmithing ideas for the goal statement. Albers suggested that the Commission wordsmith their suggestions and put them on ‘my sidewalk.’ He moved onto the idea of housing and diversified housing. The Commission further discussed the housing and density requirements. V. Reid stated that she would prefer to spread out the higher density areas so that it is not all crammed into one place, noting that others on the Committee had the opposite opinion wanting to keep the high density housing all in one area. Murrin stated that if only the development in the area with sewer is counted, that would force development along Highway 55 rather than spread outside of that area. Foote stated that developers can petition the Metropolitan Council to move the MUSA. R. Reid stated that the Metropolitan Council builds the main lines for the sewer and then the developer would pay to connect to their sites being developed. The Commission further discussed future development possibilities and what could occur in the future regarding development. 12 White stated that the Steering Committee appears to be doing a great job in attempting to spread development. V. Reid stated that she would not be opposed to a three story residential building in Uptown Hamel, as that could be an appropriate setting. Murrin noted that Plymouth will be adding a large development on the other side of Brockton and if high density residential is added in Uptown Hamel that would change the character of that area. V. Reid stated that specific ideas or wordsmithing could be uploaded to the ‘my sidewalk’ portion of the City website. 10. Council Meeting Schedule Albers volunteered to represent the Commission at the next Council meeting. 11. Adjourn Motion by Murrin, seconded by Foote, to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.